Monday, April 16, 2012

La Pierre Promises to Help Harlem Moms

via Baldr from The Daily News

A Harlem mom whose two sons were murdered by gun-toting killers stood toe-to-toe Saturday with a leader of the National Rifle Association.

Jackie Rowe-Adams traveled to the NRA’s national meeting and had a verbal duel with NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, a slightly tense exchange that evolved into mutual respect.

“For a minute, for a second, I felt a little anger, because he was so determined to believe that his way was right,” Rowe-Adams said afterward. “But then he flipped on it, and started to listen.”
I'm holding my breath, how about you?


  1. Why would I hold my breath? Oh, right, to wait for the reporter to tell us what La Pierre had to say. To get a response from the NRA. To find balance on the subject of guns in the media. Um, no, I'm not holding my breath for any of that.

    I recognize the pain that this mother feels, but we cannot base social policy and natural and civil rights on that.

  2. "Natural rights"? define those, genius. Also, explain how natural rights accrue to and are enjoyed without gummints making sure that the "freedom lovin' patriotz wit teh biggest gunz" don't decide whose "natural rightz" are worth protectin'? Think Afghanistan, Somalia and other models of laissez faire (read "only governable with the help of thousands of U.S. & NATO troops and $B's in cash" for Afghanistan and "nonexistent" for Somalia).

    Try to write complete, clear sentences with adequate citation so that we don't just go, like, "Oh, that Greg Camp, bullshittin' as usual, whodathunkit?!"

    1. What part of what I wrote requires "adequate citation"? But since you asked, please read news accounts or commentary that involve firearms. The language is frequently inaccurate; the opinion of the author is frequently against weapons, and the details are frequently lacking.

      As for natural rights, I don't expect you to be able to understand the difference between those and civil rights, but for the benefit of other readers, natural rights are those that we are born with by virtue of being human, while civil rights are those guaranteed by the laws of a society. The closer a nation's civil rights are to natural rights, the better that nation is. One natural right is the right of self defense. Our civil rights to own property and specifically to own firearms are a means of protecting our natural right to defend ourselves.

    2. Democommie's right to call you out on "natural rights." That's bullshit.

      1. right to life, is fine.
      2. right to self-defense, is fine too.
      3. right to own an inanimate object called gun is bullshit. You might as well say you have a natural right to own a can opener.

    3. So you agree that we have a right in theory, but don't see any right to have a device that makes that right a practical reality? But we do have a right to property, so yes, we have a right to have can openers. The latter is a derivative right, but that doesn't diminish it.

  3. Oh, I'm sorry I meant to add that Weenie LaPierre musta been totally pissed that he couldn't just blow away that "mamagoblin" with his trusty penis substitute. I mean, she was clearly acting a "threatening manner", right--gettin' all up in his grill'n'shit?

  4. Why in the world would this woman from Harlem not be at the doorstep of Rev. AL and that idiot mayor of hers?
    orlin sellers

  5. "Try to write complete, clear sentences"

    That's funny coming from you!

    Keep posting democommie, you do our side more good than harm. In fact, I suspect you are a pro-2A type who puts on this fake persona to make the antis look bad.

    Keep up the good work!

  6. Greg Camp sez"

    "What part of what I wrote requires "adequate citation"?"

    The part where you say:

    "we cannot base social policy and natural and civil rights on that."

    Who, exactly, is "we"? I'm certainly not part of your "we", and if "
    we" says we cannot do those things, what is their justification for saying so? Here's a clue, "I don't wanna" is not sufficient reason. Find some justifications by Smith, Lock, Rousseau, Voltaire or any of the people who actually spent most of their adult lives studying the conditions of human society instead of obsessing about gunz--bring it back and we'll have a nice discussion. Or, continue to be an idiot.

    "As for natural rights, I don't expect you to be able to understand the difference between those and civil rights, but for the benefit of other readers, natural rights are those that we are born with by virtue of being human..."

    I can't wait to see your copy of the Book of Genesis wherein the Skydaddy sez to Adam, "Jumpin JWHW, Adam, I gave you the lady, what else do you want?", Adam's reply?, "Skydude! I needz teh gunz!". Hey, wait, maybe that's the REAL story about why Adam and Eve got the boot from the GofE, the devil in the guise of a snakeoil salesman (looking suspiciously like Weenie LaPierre) slithered down the tree with a Colt 1911--or maybe it was a Springfield XD--and conned Eve into giving it to Adam by telling her that once he had teh gunz, Adam would be GOD's equal and wouldn't have to take his shit nomo, nomo! I LOVZ bible stories!!

    1. Democommie, haven't I made it clear to you that I'm not a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim? The point being, I regard Genesis as a great work of literature, but I don't see it as binding on my life. But I did do a semester on Genesis in graduate school, which included digging through the original Hebrew, and I never ran across any mention of a firearm. Do you need a citation?